Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute Return

By Andrew C. Revkin June 8, 2012 4:19 pmJune 8, 2012 4:19 pm

After an internal investigation, Peter Gleick has been reinstated as president of the Pacific Institute, the environmental group largely focused on water and climate that he founded in 1987. The career of this seasoned and lauded scientist and policy analyst ran off the rails when Gleick masqueraded as a member of the board of the anti-regulatory Heartland Institute to obtain internal documents on budgets and strategies. (He undertook this deception even as he was heading a task force on scientific ethics for the American Geophysical Union.)

There are encouraging and troubling aspects of the institute’s decision. The encouraging part is the apparent commitment Gleick made in a statement released by the group to have “a renewed focus and dedication to the science and research that remain at the core of the Pacific Institute’s mission.” I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a condition of the reinstatement. That is where his strengths lie and energy, to my mind, will be put to best use.

I can see the merit in the Pacific Institute’s decision, which allows him to resume his valuable work analyzing water trends, risks and policies now that he’s apologized for what he did (which, among other things, included releasing confidential information about employees of the Heartland group who had nothing to do with setting its climate agenda). If any legal machinations play out, he’ll have to deal with them.

Here’s the troubling part: The Pacific Institute described its investigation as “a confidential personnel matter” and said for that reason no details on the process or findings would be released. Most notably, the group and its board declined to elaborate on the finding that the investigation, conducted by Independent Employment Counsel, “supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute.”

Does that mean the group expressly confirmed that a particularly provocative, and disputed, document was in fact produced by the Heartland Institute and not by Gleick himself or someone else?

No answer.

It’s fine to have an internal personnel investigation, but if you’re going to then release the finding publicly, but not any other details, it’s hard to see that carrying much weight in discourse outside the organization itself.

That’s why I see little merit in descriptions of the reinstatement as an exoneration — a word used by Michael E. Mann, a Pennsylvania State University* climate scientist who, like Gleick, has become a prominent campaigner for action on curbing greenhouse gases. Here’s how Mann was quoted on the Gleick affair in Politico:

“I’m very pleased to learn that Peter has been exonerated,” Michael Mann of Penn State told ME. “He’s been a tireless champion for an informed discussion about how we deal with the challenges of climate change and diminishing access to clean water. I, for one, welcome him back to that discussion.”

With the big questions about the Heartland incident still unresolved, I don’t imagine, for example, that you’ll see Gleick in front of a congressional committee on climate any time soon.

What's Next

About

By 2050 or so, the human population is expected to pass nine billion. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. Dot Earth was created by Andrew Revkin in October 2007 -- in part with support from a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship -- to explore ways to balance human needs and the planet's limits.